Brazil's Supreme Court decided on Thursday to end the mandatory imprisonment of convicted criminals after they lose their first appeal, restoring the previous rule that they should be allowed to exhaust all their appeal options before being locked up. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
The judges and prosecutors of Operation Lava a Jato acted in collusion to convict and arrest Lula. No evidence of any crime committed by Lula was found. Judge Sérgio Moro and prosecutors used torture methods to force award-winning accusations to incriminate Lula, and they accepted the accusations even without accompanying evidence.Nov 08th, 2019 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse +2
Everything was done to remove Lula from the 2018 presidential election. Lula was the favorite and polls showed he would be elected in the first round.
Two words...Nov 08th, 2019 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I know that I am not a lawyer and do not have any legal training but on reading this part of the article. Brazil's Supreme Court decided on Thursday to end the mandatory imprisonment of convicted criminals after they lose their first appeal, restoring the previous rule that they should be allowed to exhaust all their appeal options before being locked up.Nov 08th, 2019 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I have two questions
1. it says first appeal
on reading the history of the case I find.
On 12 July 2017, Lula was convicted of money laundering and passive corruption,
(Appeal 1) On 24 January 2018, the Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region, which is a panel of three appellate judges, unanimously upheld Moro's ruling against Lula and increased the sentence to 12 years.
(Appeal 2) On 5 April 2018, the Supreme Federal Court voted to reject Lula's habeas corpus plea and on the same day a warrant was issued for his arrest.
There are other instances in which his legal team has called for the judgment of the Supreme Court to be overturned by a single judge. These were reported in the media as appeals. The ruling of the judge, who called for his release, was found to be unlawful. These actions were also appeals against the decision of the court.
so as far as I can see he has had more than 1 appeal so the change in the law does not apply to him as it states one appeal.
2. The other point is that if he already has further appeals why has his legal team not made any application for lodgement of the appeal. I do not know about here but in many countries you only have a certain time in which to lodge the appeal.
The change in law was to remove the one appeal limit, so it does apply to Lula. He's had his first appeal, plus the HC ruling, but his lawyers have applied for more. With all the appeals possible in Brazil it can be years before criminals actually go to jail; that's why they changed the law in the first place.Nov 08th, 2019 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
MarkWhelanNov 08th, 2019 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The measures issued are legally binding, according to the UN Human Rights Commission.
Sarah Cleveland, vice-president of the UNHRC, has condemned statements made by Brazilian officials following the UN's determination that the state should “take all necessary measures” to allow Brazilian presidential candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to “exercise his political rights” as a candidate in the October presidential elections
Speaking in an interview with swissinfo.ch Cleveland said the measures put forward by the Committee are legally binding.
The precautionary measures issued are not recommendations, they are legally binding and impose an international legal obligation on Brazil to fulfill them, she said.
Cleveland went on to say that the Geneva-based commission ”has no interest in the results of the elections, only in the right of everyone to participate.”
But warned that “failure to comply with the precautionary measures would mean that Brazil would be violating” international treaties to which it is a signatory.
The UN Human Rights Commission issued the decision on August 17,
prisoner of conscience
“Rough justice The trial against Lula da Silva is politically motivated and based on flimsy evidence, argues Germany’s former justice minister…That counts for little in Brazil, where even senior judges spoke out against Lula before he had actually been found guilty. Despite claiming ‘judicial independence’, they have undermined the principle of rule of law enshrined in Brazil’s constitution.”
“Brazil’s Democracy Pushed Into the Abyss
The evidence against Mr. da Silva is far below the standards that would be taken seriously in, for example, the United States’ judicial system.”
Mark this is a South American country where if you have money anything goes.Depends where your loyalty lies although having said that, they can turn on a sixpence. These South American countries are so corrupt it is a way of life.When I was down there I had a problem, but money talks, no problem.Sorted. Allegedly most of the UK politicians are on some sort of fiddle, We can go back a few years and who was not fiddling their expences.The EU is the same , they have never had an audit since inception.I saw a video once where an EU politician booked in with overnight bag and claimed his 300 euros attendance feeNov 08th, 2019 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Crisis in Brazil. Perry AndersonNov 08th, 2019 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
“The fact that there is no physical evidence implicating Lula led Mark Weisbrot, writing in the New York Times
He would’ve “got away with accepting the gift”, if not for the Lavajato following the money trail
Yet crucially, there is no evidence that Lula either owned or lived in the triplex at any point. Beyond the suspicious activity with apartment 164-A, the court cited no evidence that directly implicated Lula in a quid pro quo with OAS. Instead, it argued that because it is known that OAS was taking kickbacks from Petrobras, and Lula was the sitting president at the time, it is reasonable to infer that he was aware and complicit. This is, needless to say, not sufficient evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. And indeed, according to several analysts, no European or American court would have ruled to convict based on the evidence presented
Waiting...Nov 08th, 2019 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Well, Lula's out - for now. How much difference it'll make for Brazil is another question.Nov 09th, 2019 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
TWIMC...Nov 09th, 2019 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Looking forward to see Lula besides my boy Kicillof on the 10/12/19...
Think is happy...
Really I'm surprised it took so long; it's all very well locking up Lula so he can't campaign in the election, but this law could affect a whole lot of other powerful people and the Brazilian establishment can't allow that.Nov 09th, 2019 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Bolsonaro suggested Lula was a “scoundrel”. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-corruption-lula/brazils-bolsonaro-swipes-at-newly-released-lula-idUSKBN1XJ0AINov 09th, 2019 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
A person who consorts with alleged assassins, could be so described. Not a person that no European or American court would have ruled to convict based on the evidence presented”